Most Popular
Recent Blog Posts
National Features >
Serving Up Stapley: Whys the Don Stapley Prosecution a Big Joke? Because the Accusers Are Far Shadier Than the AccusedContinued from page 5Published on November 23, 2009 at 4:36pmThe money poured in, according to the MCSO report. By December 2005, the supervisor had collected $135,000 for his "Stapley for NACo" bank account. Then, deputies say, he proceeded to spend the money over the next three years. By the end of 2008, they say, Stapley had drained the account and still had more than $1,000 owing on a "Stapley for NACo" credit card. Yet Stapley never faced an opponent for his NACo position. The Sheriff's Office estimates that about a third of the money was spent on personal items. Airfare and other travel expenses were assumed to be for NACo functions, but that left many questionable transactions involving the campaign money, according to the MCSO records, including: More than $16,000 spent for electronics and furniture; thousands of dollars spent at local stores, from Nordstrom to an antique shop; funds spent for pet grooming, car washes, and groceries; a bill of $1,300 to Tony Martingilio, a hair-replacement specialist; and bills totaling about $400 for spa treatments. The Sheriff's Office wants Stapley charged with 48 counts of misusing public office, 45 counts of theft, and one count of fraud in the NACo fundraising scheme. Add that to the alleged tax and loan-fraud felonies, plus four other supposed felonies related to Stapley's county supervisor campaign forms, and you get to the 100 recommended charges. None of the charges have been made formal by a prosecutor's office, and a conviction of Stapley won't be a cakewalk. It's a safe bet that his high-powered legal team will argue that every purchase made with the NACo campaign money related somehow to his position as a NACo officer. Also complicating the prosecution effort: The NACo "victims" don't necessarily feel like victims. Detectives tried to contact 41 of the donors. Some wouldn't answer questions. Twenty-three reportedly said their money shouldn't have been used for personal expenses. But interview transcripts show the detectives steered the conversations toward desired conclusions, sometimes cooking up phony scenarios to make their points. When Connie Wilhelm, president of the Homebuilders Association, was asked what she would think if she knew some of her $25,000 contribution was spent on personal things, she said it would depend on what was being called "personal." She added that the Homebuilders Association she heads did not dictate to Stapley how to spend the money it contributed. "Right," answers a detective , according to the interview transcript. "Um, but by buying your daughter a $25,000 — and I'm just using that number because that's the donation — Ford Mustang [as] a graduation gift?" Wilhem finally concedes the scenario would not be acceptable. Stapley never bought his daughter a car with contributed money. When detectives interviewed Rusty Bowers, a longtime Stapley friend who made a $5,000 donation on behalf of the Arizona Rock Products Association, they threw out the idea that Stapley had bought a TV set for a friend with some of the money. No clear evidence of such a purchase was recorded in the Sheriff's Office records. Though Bowers replied during the interview that he wouldn't be "content" if the money were used like that, he tells New Times he does not feel "victimized" in the slightest. "I felt I was being led [by sheriff's investigators] to feel that [Stapley] was up to mischief," Bowers says. Local attorney Brian Kaven gave the strongest negative statement to detectives, saying he would be "very, very, very unhappy" if he knew his donation had been used for personal expenses. But, like some of the other people interviewed, Kaven was skeptical of the investigation itself. Thomas had transferred the Stapley case to Yavapai County, so why, Kaven asked the deputies, was Maricopa County even still working it? "That means there's still that 'conflict of interest' between the Sheriff's Office and maybe our County Attorney and the Board Supervisors," Kaven said to the deputies. "Oh, boy." A few weeks before Stapley's arrest, County Elections Director Karen Osborne sent the County Attorney's Office a letter about possible campaign-finance violations she wanted Thomas to take action on. Call this a tip, too. Thomas was informed that one or more people had made contributions in the name of another — a felony or felonies. Corporations had donated money in an attempt to influence the 2008 election, and the money may have been illegally earmarked to go toward a specific candidate, she alleged. She noted that nothing about the case barred a criminal prosecution. The state Attorney General's Office had begun its own investigation into the case "and may have access to additional materials," Osborne wrote. Unlike with Stapley, Thomas did not have Lisa Aubuchon take the tip to the Sheriff's Office. Thomas hasn't even referred Osborne's case to the AG, which would be the obvious and easy thing to do, since Osborne had told him about the AG's investigation. Thomas isn't interested because the case involves the highest levels of the Sheriff's Office and state Republican Party. Top MCSO commanders — including Hendershott — and a few wealthy donors raised money in a secret slush fund starting in 2006 for the apparent benefit of Sheriff Arpaio. Then, weeks before the 2008 election, $105,000 from the fund was given to the Republican Party under the mysterious acronym "SCA," which the public later learned stands for "Sheriff's Command Association." The state GOP eventually returned the illegal contribution to the SCA's frontman, MCSO Captain Joel Fox. But by that time, the party had used the money to fund TV ads that smeared Arpaio and Thomas' political opponents.
show/hide comments (31)
write your comment
|